ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Benchmarking large language models for personalized, biomarker-based health intervention recommendations.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deficiencies in clinical reasoning of LLMs in low back pain management and remediation via prompt engineering: from performance evaluation to error diagnosis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of large language models (LLMs) in clinical diagnostics and intervention planning is expanding, yet their utility for personalized recommendations for longevity interventions remains opaque. We extended the BioChatter framework to benchmark LLMs' ability to generate personalized longevity intervention recommendations based on biomarker profiles while adhering to key medical validation requirements. Using 25 individual profiles across three different age groups, we generated 1000 diverse test cases covering interventions such as caloric restriction, fasting and supplements. Evaluating 56000 model responses via an LLM-as-a-Judge system with clinician validated ground truths, we found that proprietary models outperformed open-source models especially in comprehensiveness. However, even with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), all models exhibited limitations in addressing key medical validation requirements, prompt stability, and handling age-related biases. Our findings highlight limited suitability of LLMs for unsupervised longevity intervention recommendations. Our open-source framework offers a foundation for advancing AI benchmarking in various medical contexts.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.